For the philosophical minded huddlers

[bushwacked]

I think I finally got it!

 

There cannot be design without a designer; order without choice; arrangement without anything capable of arranging; subserviency and relation to a purpose without that which could intend a purpose; means suitable to an end, and executing their office in accomplishing that end, without the end ever having been contemplated or the means accommodated to it.

 

We do not need to know how something is made in order to conclude that it was deliberately designed.

 

Arrangement, disposition of parts, subserviency of means to an end, relation of instruments to a use imply the presence of intelligence and mind.

 

 

Besides not being a very convincing argument (in my mind) you also get an F for plagirism.

[TheGrunt]

Besides not being a very convincing argument (in my mind) you also get an F for plagirism.

Considering I am taking a philosophy class, and using a book to assist in my learning, this doesn't appear to me as plagiarism.

[TheGrunt]

Now you have shifted into faith and out of philosophy, thanks for visiting.

If you are walking by a random bush, or whatever, and you find a basketball sized rock sitting next to a mechanical watch, what evidence do you have to suggest the watch was created by a designer and not the rock?

[cre8tiff]

If you are walking by a random bush, or whatever, and you find a basketball sized rock sitting next to a mechanical watch, what evidence do you have to suggest the watch was created by a designer and not the rock?

 

If a raccoon lays a turd in the shape of the letter J, what evidence do you have to prove it isn't illiterate?

Edited October 19, 2007 by cre8tiff

[TheGrunt]

If a raccoon lays a turd in the shape of the letter J, what evidence do you have to prove it isn't illiterate?

I don't see how this has anything to do with what I am arguing for.

[cre8tiff]

I don't see how this has anything to do with what I am arguing for.

 

Think about it.

[TheGrunt]

Think about it.

Well, because I know the raccoon is going to produce another turd, it is possible that I am looking at only the first letter of his name -- for all intensive purposes we can call him Joe. So it's conceivable that by random luck I just so happen to walk by the raccoon in mid-signature, and because it takes this raccoon several days to poop out his signature I'd be making a mistake by suggesting the raccoon must be illiterate. The raccoon hasn't misspelled anything yet.

[cre8tiff]

Very well then. First I would have to argue that in order to accept the premise you laid out, I would have to understand the concepts of both "rock" and "watch". Since I know, as you do, that "watches" are indeed made by a "designer", then the odds the rock made it are rather poor.

 

HOWEVER, if I had no concept or understanding of "watch", then I could not know the small goldish thing laying on the ground beside the rock was anything but just another object. There would be no reason to think one had anything to do with the other, other than proximity. If that was the case, then there is just as good a chance the bush made it, or the ground, or something out of thin air. In my ignorance, I could guess any number of things, one of which may be right, or all of which may be wrong. So now I pick up this object and make up a name for it, for as a human, we have the desire to categorize. I decide to call it "schlop". As I am looking at this strange object, it begins beeping. I have no explanation for it. I do not understand how this "Schlop" could be making noise when it doesn't breathe. I press a button on it's side and a small part of it is suddenly alight, like with fire, but cold. Now I am a bit fearful on my ignorance. How could such a thing be? What else makes noise but is not alive? Lights up with a blue light? The skies above rumble and crash during storms, and lightening lights the sky with a blue light. But storms and lightening are made by the Gods. Could this be a thing made by Gods? Sent to us to worship? It must be. I take it back to my tribe, and we enshrine the "Holy Scholp". A rival tribe tries to take the Schlop for thier own, and we kill them, because the "Holy Schlop" was sent to us, and us alone. The "Holy Schlop" becomes the most coveted religious icon in our world, until the day an explorer discovers us and explains the "Schlop" is actually something called a "watch" made by a scientific process, and not magical at all.

 

We nod, then kill and eat him, as befits anyone who speaks ill of the "Holy Schlop".

[TheGrunt]

Very well then. First I would have to argue that in order to accept the premise you laid out, I would have to understand the concepts of both "rock" and "watch". Since I know, as you do, that "watches" are indeed made by a "designer", then the odds the rock made it are rather poor.

 

HOWEVER, if I had no concept or understanding of "watch", then I could not know the small goldish thing laying on the ground beside the rock was anything but just another object. There would be no reason to think one had anything to do with the other, other than proximity. If that was the case, then there is just as good a chance the bush made it, or the ground, or something out of thin air. In my ignorance, I could guess any number of things, one of which may be right, or all of which may be wrong. So now I pick up this object and make up a name for it, for as a human, we have the desire to categorize. I decide to call it "schlop". As I am looking at this strange object, it begins beeping. I have no explanation for it. I do not understand how this "Schlop" could be making noise when it doesn't breathe. I press a button on it's side and a small part of it is suddenly alight, like with fire, but cold. Now I am a bit fearful on my ignorance. How could such a thing be? What else makes noise but is not alive? Lights up with a blue light? The skies above rumble and crash during storms, and lightening lights the sky with a blue light. But storms and lightening are made by the Gods. Could this be a thing made by Gods? Sent to us to worship? It must be. I take it back to my tribe, and we enshrine the "Holy Scholp". A rival tribe tries to take the Schlop for thier own, and we kill them, because the "Holy Schlop" was sent to us, and us alone. The "Holy Schlop" becomes the most coveted religious icon in our world, until the day an explorer discovers us and explains the "Schlop" is actually something called a "watch" made by a scientific process, and not magical at all.

 

We nod, then kill and eat him, as befits anyone who speaks ill of the "Holy Schlop".

Perfect.

 

Excellent story. Although, I think I phrased the question in the original post you are referring to wrong. I didn't mean to make it seem like I was asking whether or not the rock designed the watch, but saying if you found and picked up both things to compare them--not knowing what a rock is, nor what a watch is--the "watch", "schlop", or thing demands an explanation because of the way in which its parts are shaped so as to work together to produce a specific result that would not have been achieved otherwise.

 

Another more closely fitting example is to compare a man-made telescope to the eye (a single thing to a single thing) -- the eye could be a human eye or a fish eye, or an animal eye, but it's gotta be an eye. There is precise proof that the eye was made for vision as there is that the telescope was made for assisting it. The eye and the telescope are both for the production of the image, and these are instruments of the same kind. The end result is the same, the means are the same. The purpose in both is alike, the contrivance (plan) for accomplishing that purpose in both is alike. They are made upon the same principles, both being adjusted to the laws by which the transmission and refraction of rays of light are regulated. It doesn't matter the origin of those laws, but that such laws are fixed: they are orderly. I should add that the above responses to objection(s) support my premise that some orderly systems are intrinsic. It also supports the premise [if natural objects have similar properties to that of man made properties, then they must be designed].

 

So the conclusion (knowing all of the similarities between the telescope and the eye), we know that the telescope (or even the watch), of its works, construction, its uniformly manufactured parts to produce a specific result, must have had [for cause and author of that construction] a designer who understood its mechanism and designed its use.

 

Is it even reasonable to suggest, under circumstances of such close affinity, to exclude contrivance (a device; a plan) from the one, yet to acknowledge the proof of contrivance having been manufactured and designed in the other?

[TheShiznit]

Sheesh...unreal

 

Grunt. Stick to your plan. I would argue that the existence of a system..or complex system...implies the need for accomplishment....but for what or whom? The fact that a system is indeed in existence for accomplishment suggests that there is a thing that is wanting or needing this said accomplishment. I would then offer examples in the business world....how sales systems are developed to accomplish success....and not for the success of the system...but for the thing that implemented the system. Ask, why are these systems put into place if they are only to succeed and accomplish for themselves....that is absurd. I might be messing up the thought and not presenting it well...but that is the line I would take. Systems are not in existence to accomplish the set end for themselves...it is to achieve a greater success than that of the system...that suggests....even outright implies the existence of a greater intellect of the system....because the intellect can foresee the fruits of the systems success whereas the system cannot...it is just a system doing what it is DESIGNED to do...and accomplish OUTCOMES it is designed to produce.

[evil_gop_liars]

wait...wait.....hold on......the raccoon is pooping out another letter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Somebody bring the laxative...

[TheShiznit]

to add:

 

IOW, what is the purpose of a system...is it to work for itself and produce for itself...or is it to work for a greater output? Need to answer that...that should be easy.

 

Since a system is in place to achieve a desired output for something greater than itself...then who or what? I don't think you need to spend a lot of time here because it is rather simple....each system has to accomplish its task for another more complex system. And so on and so forth...until you get to the ultimate complex system.....the last system that is the benefit of all the production of all the lesser complex systems....and the output for that system is achieving a goal for something greater than itself....which LOGIC would tell you would be the designer.

 

God I hate philosphy anymore!!!!!! LOL

[TheGrunt]

to add:

 

IOW, what is the purpose of a system...is it to work for itself and produce for itself...or is it to work for a greater output? Need to answer that...that should be easy.

 

Since a system is in place to achieve a desired output for something greater than itself...then who or what? I don't think you need to spend a lot of time here because it is rather simple....each system has to accomplish its task for another more complex system. And so on and so forth...until you get to the ultimate complex system.....the last system that is the benefit of all the production of all the lesser complex systems....and the output for that system is achieving a goal for something greater than itself....which LOGIC would tell you would be the designer.

 

God I hate philosphy anymore!!!!!! LOL

what is the purpose of a system?

To put this in terms of purpose begs the exact question of "what is the purpose", mainly because it seems to presuppose an intelligent being. However, it doesn't matter what the exact purpose is, just that we can show there is a purpose. The mechanism (orderly system) being observed requires examination of the instrument, thing, or object, and likely some previous knowledge of the subject, to perceive and understand it. So it's not the presupposed purpose that implies intelligent design, but the orderly system that demands an explanation because of the way in which its parts are shaped, so as to work together to produce a specific result that would not have been achieved otherwise. It is this arrangement, disposition of parts, subserviency of means to an end, relation of instruments (or things) to a use imply the presence of intelligence and mind. Thus, I can finally prove another premise! The above shows how [Only intelligent design can cause orderly systems]. This also might be proving my last up-to-this-point unproven premise arguing that [complexity implies a designer].

[TheGrunt]

I'm going to continue doing research to see if I can object to any of the responses that I've given to all other objections received thus far. But, uh, philosophically it appears I may have finally proven that the Universe (probably) has a Designer.

 

I'll be getting up pretty early tomorrow morning to finish writing my actual paper, so I'll be sure and check back here to see if there are any other valid objections to my arguments.

[wiegie]

But, uh, philosophically it appears I may have finally proven that the Universe (probably) has a Designer.

I nominate TheGrunt as the new recipient of the title "Funniest Huddler".

[Azazello1313]

read this

[cre8tiff]

read this

The Achilles heel of the argument is that it fails if there exists a plausible explanation of phenomenon X in terms of natural processes. And this makes it vulnerable to advances in science, which has progressively found more and more naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena, and progressively abandoned explanations in terms of teleology. The location of mountains, for instance, is now explained in terms of plate tectonics. The structure of biological organisms is explained in terms of natural selection. The structure of the solar system is explained in terms of the nebular hypothesis and its refinements. And so on.

 

OK,now I'm happy. I stumbled upon the Achilles heel.

 

Even a blind squirrel...

[wiegie]

Here is what you should write on your paper:

 

"It is impossible to prove that God exists using the Argument from Design. Hence it is logically idiot for me to waste my time trying to do so.

 

QED"

 

If your instructor balks at this answer, then make him/her provide the desired proof to show that your statement above is incorrect.

[TheShiznit]

I'm going to continue doing research to see if I can object to any of the responses that I've given to all other objections received thus far. But, uh, philosophically it appears I may have finally proven that the Universe (probably) has a Designer.

 

I'll be getting up pretty early tomorrow morning to finish writing my actual paper, so I'll be sure and check back here to see if there are any other valid objections to my arguments.

 

 

Grunt...to throw something else at you....others have talked about things naturally occurring and what not. Ask yourself this....what is nature...and is it itself a complex system? Doesn't nature have rules and truths? Don't thing happen because the system that is nature allows it to happen? It also goes then that nature prevents things from happening as well. I guess I don't have a problem with things NATURALLY occurring because I think I can show that nature in and of itself is a complex system which accomplishes multiple tasks to achieve a result greater than itself....or for a purpose greater than himself. Again...that would imply a design and a designer. Let me know if I am making no sense!!!! LOL

[tonorator]

i'm still trying to figure out how snowflakes are ordered things. everyone is different ...

[Caveman_Nick]

 

Here is some information on snowflakes, which may help prove or disprove your argument.

[billay]

I'm at work and don;t have time to elaborate at the moment, but check this out Grunt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

 

The anthropic principle basically states that, based upon what we know about the universe, it's very unlikely that intelligent life would haqve evolved. If you tinkered with the universe in this way or that way at any point along the lines of it's evolution, then human beings would not have evolved. Some choose to infer from this that if the universe evolved in the only way it could have which would support intelligent life, out of the billions of other possibilities, then it must have had a designer.

[TheGrunt]

i'm still trying to figure out how snowflakes are ordered things. everyone is different ...

After further review I found that snowflakes are in fact not orderly things. I've omitted the premise regarding snowflakes from my essay.

[TheGrunt]

Grunt...to throw something else at you....others have talked about things naturally occurring and what not. Ask yourself this....what is nature...and is it itself a complex system? Doesn't nature have rules and truths? Don't thing happen because the system that is nature allows it to happen? It also goes then that nature prevents things from happening as well. I guess I don't have a problem with things NATURALLY occurring because I think I can show that nature in and of itself is a complex system which accomplishes multiple tasks to achieve a result greater than itself....or for a purpose greater than himself. Again...that would imply a design and a designer. Let me know if I am making no sense!!!! LOL

I'm doing some more reading on this, but I'll get back to ya when I have answers!

[Ursa Majoris]

I'm at work and don;t have time to elaborate at the moment, but check this out Grunt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

 

The anthropic principle basically states that, based upon what we know about the universe, it's very unlikely that intelligent life would haqve evolved. If you tinkered with the universe in this way or that way at any point along the lines of it's evolution, then human beings would not have evolved. Some choose to infer from this that if the universe evolved in the only way it could have which would support intelligent life, out of the billions of other possibilities, then it must have had a designer.

Wait.....isn't there a mismatch here between "human life" and "intelligent life"? Isn't it possible that of all the billions of ways the universe could have developed, it is almost inevitable that some form of intelligent life (not necessarily human life) would appear?